Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Aldrich v. Basile

The issues in this case stem from an "E-Z Legal Form" executed by the decedent, which apparently neglected to include a residuary clause. Thus, the decedent left a will which simply devised a list of specifically described property to her sister if she survived her, and if she did not, left that property to her brother. When the sister predeceased the decedent, she left the decedent additional property which was not included in that list. This meant that when the decedent ultimately died, she died owning property that was not listed in her will. While she did draft a document, entitled "Just a Note," which stated that all of her "worldly possessions" should pass to her brother, this document was not properly executed and was therefore not an enforceable testamentary instrument under the Florida Probate Code.

The brother argued that he was entitled to all of the property, including the property not listed in the will, for three reasons: (1) the will only named the sister and brother as beneficiaries and disposed of all property owned by the sister at the time of the execution of the will; (2) F.S. 736.6005(2) provides that a will shall be construed to pass all property that the testator owned at death, including property acquired after the will is executed, and (3) there is a legal presumption against construction of a will that results in partial intestacy. The decedent's intestate heirs, her nieces, argued that since the will contained no mechanism for disposing of the property acquired after the will was executed, she died intestate as to that property.

The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the legislative history of Florida law regarding wills and after-acquired property. It noted that originally, a will would not be effective devise real property in Florida if the testator did not have an interest in that property at the time the will was executed. Eventually, statutes were enacted which said that a residuary clause would be effective to transfer property acquired after the execution of the will. The current law on this issue, F.S. 732.6005, reads as follows:

(1) The intention of the testator as expressed in the will controls the legal effect of the testator's dispositions. The rules of construction expressed in this part shall apply unless a contrary intention is indicated by the will.

(2) Subject to the foregoing, a will is construed to pass all property which the testator owns at death, including property acquired after the execution of the will.

The legislative history of this section reveals that it was not meant to change the existing law, and the fact that the statute no longer contained an explicit reference to residuary clauses was not meant to be a substantial change in the law.

The Court also considered how intestacy law relates to F.S. 732.6005. F.S. 732.101(1) says that, "Any part of the estate of a decedent not effectively disposed of by will passes to the decedent's heirs as prescribed in the following sections of this code." Since the legislature did not limit the application of the intestacy statute for estates containing after-acquired property, it appears it intended for after-acquired property to be subject to the intestacy statute in the event it is not effectively disposed of by will.

The Court ultimately found the brother's arguments about his sister's intent to be ineffective. The Court held that it could not look outside the four corners of the document since the will was not ambiguous. The will expressed no intent as to any property that she may have acquired after the execution of her will. It contained no residuary devise. To distribute the after-acquired property to the brother would in effect be a reformation of the will. Therefore, the Court held that the after-acquired property would pass by intestacy to the decedent's nieces.

Justice Pariente wrote a concurring opinion, in which she made the following observation:

I therefore take this opportunity to highlight a cautionary tale of the potential dangers of utilizing pre-printed forms and drafting a will without legal assistance. As this case illustrates, that decision can ultimately result in the frustration of the testator's intent, in addition to the payment of extensive attorney's fees-- the precise results the testator sought to avoid in the first place.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I started this blog in 2013, and this is the first time I have the opportunity to write about a case that I am actually involved in. This case involves a long-running dispute between the father of the decedent, the personal representative of the estate, and the decedent's children, the beneficiaries of the estate (the personal representative's grandchildren). The personal representative appealed a decision by the trial court which required all estate assets to be placed in a restricted depository.
Restricted depositories have been common-place in Miami-Dade County for quite some time. Recently, South Palm Beach County has instituted as similar requirement. As a matter of course, all estates opened since the introduction of this policy have been required to place all assets in a restricted depository and assets may only be withdrawn with a court order.
Here, the beneficiaries had concerns about their actions as personal …

Rizk v. Rizk, 260 So.3d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) This decision centers around the ability of a beneficiary to challenge a will executed in another country even if they did not contest that will in the country where it was executed. Here, the will was purportedly executed in Haiti in accordance with Haitian law. The beneficiary tried to challenge the will in Florida, alleging that the decedent was not actually in Haiti on the day the will was purportedly signed, and that the witnesses did not sign the will on that date. F.S. 732.502(2) provides that a nonresident's will will be treated as valid in Florida if the will is valid under the laws of the state or country where the will was executed. Because the beneficiary had not challenged the will's validity in Haiti and was receiving benefits from that will, the Court upheld the trial court's determination that the 2013 will was valid in Haiti.

Bitezakis v. Bitezakis, 264 So.3d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) While it seems easy enough to execute a will, this case reminds us that a client's attempt to do so at home without the guidance of a lawyer may have serious unintended consequences if the will is not executed in strict compliance with the signature requirements of F.S. 732.502. Here, the decedent and two friends were in his home when first, two witnesses signed a purported will of the decedent, and subsequently, the decedent began to sign the will but stopped after signing just his first name after his wife instructed him to stop because a notary was not present. The next day, she took the decedent to a notary, where he mistakenly executed an affidavit of subscribing witness in the presence of a notary. The trial court found that because it was the testator's intent that the document be his will, the will should be admitted to probate. The Court reversed and found that because the will failed to conform to the requirements…